Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-12-18
Court OF Appeals.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.

Court OF Appeals.
Correspondence OF the Gazette.
TYLER, TEX, Dec. l4.-Hose Derrett
VS.. the state; appeal from Houston coun-
ty. Where evidence Is conflicting, as in
this case, the jury are the exclusive judges
Of the weight of the testimony and Of
the credibhity OF the witnesses. The
court properly instructed the jury on this
and other points, ard there beingnO error
apparent, we will not disturb the judg-
ment. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
ia Cook vs.. the State; appeal from
Cherokee. Conviction for violation Of
local option law. Ia this case the charge
Of the court was full end fair, the com
plant was sufficient, and there was nc
error in the court below preiudiCisl to
the appellant The Judgment will be of
frmed. Hurt, j.
W. Patlllo VS.. the State; appeal
from Bosque. When an application for
continuance is mace, for want of evil
deHce which it is apparent is not material
to the administration of justice in the
case. Held: The court did not err
in everything the motion. It was not
error for the court below to reject
charges asked by appellant charging the
law on an issue not rniaed by the plead
ings nor evidence. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
Jno. Sturdy VS.. the State; appeal from
Lamar. The evidence shows that there
was an agreement between appellant and
one Jackson to steal the horse N the
Indian Naturalization TO steal the
horse, take it eff end sell it, and divide
the proceeds with appellant. The horse
wSs stolen, appellant furnished bride,
and the horse was sold and proceeds di-
vided as per sgreement. Held: These facts
are sufficient to make the appellant
a principal in the offense Of bringing the
horse into the state under the rule laid
down in 16 c.. A. 400. No error. Affirm
ed. Hurt, j.
Ike Ard vs.. the State; appeal from
Houston. An application was properly
overruled where the same does not show
diligence to procure the alleged absent
testimony. The charge was correct, and
the evidence was amply sufficient. There
was no reversible error. Affirmed. Hurt,
J.
J. Fl. Reiger VS.. the State; sppeal from
Montsgue. Conviction Cor assault TO
murder. Where the charge is not
materially erroneous, the case will
rot be reversed on that ground.
It WAS not error to overrule the motion
for continuance, for the absent testimony
was not material, end was merely for the
purpose of contradicting witnesses for the
prosecution. No error. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
in Eussll vs.. the State; appeal from
Travis. Motion for rehesriDg. Where
the evidence Of en- accomplish is cor
~
stances surrounding the fraudu
lent transaction, the evidence will
be sufficient to convict. The evidence of
the accomplice is strongly corroborated
by oil surrounding circumstances, and
the motion for rehearing is not therefore
well taken, and will be oVerruled. Hurt, j.
PoneV Workman vs. 1.-THE State; appeal
from Houston. No error in everything
In. motion for continuance, because the
same was too general in stating What
was expected to be proven by the ab-
seat testimony. Il also appeared that
two of the witnesses sfterWsrd appeared,
and were rot c.lled by the defendant TO
testify. The other witness was not pres
enL when the offeuss was committed.
Charge OF court full, fsir and correct.
No material error. Affirmed. Hurt, J.
T. S. Gregory vs.. the Stste; appeal
from Lamar. Conviction for forgery.
The defense OF insanity is not supported
by the evidence. There are perhaps
some errors in the charge OF
the court upon the Issue CT
insanity, but the charge was not excepted
TO, and there are no such errors in view
If the evidence IS were calculated to in
iarc the rights Of appellant. The judg-
ment Of the court below will be affirmed.
Hurt, J.
Tom Condray vs.. the State; appeal
from Jack. Motion for reheariug. Appel
liant bases his motion for rehearing
mainly on the ground of newly discov-
cred evidence. Held: This court can
not entertain motion for rehearing On
the ground of newly disco vered evidence.
The motion will he overEuled. Hurt. j.
Sam MADDEN vs.. the Safe; sppeal from
Lamar. The su!7 question made ia this
case is, does the recent act making con-
version OF property ny bailee, repeal the
statute If moe II ement in so far as the
same It lstes TO embe Element by q
bailee. Held: This question is not
properly in the case, IS the offense was
committee before the new law went into
effect, and the new law only
changes the definition of the cffense.
No error. Aft med. Hurt, j.
William Whitford vs.. the State; appeal
from Bexar. Appellant, together with
one Miller, alias Heiderluck, and Frank
Hawkins were jointly indicted for con-
spiracy to commit burglary. Appel
liant was tried alone, having asked
for q severance. In bar OF this prosecu
ton appellant interposes plea Of convic-
ton for the burglary. This plea, on mo-
ton Of the District Attorney, was
stricken out, and the ruling assigned
as error. Held: We have examined al
the authorities accessible, but have failed
to dad In any work the precise question
presented or discussed. II Is established